This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

36864

Vol. 63, No. 130

Wednesday, July 8, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–CE–23–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

Aircraft Company Models 1900, 1900C,

and 1900D Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)

97–14–16, which currently requires

repetitively inspecting the flap aft roller

bearings and flap attachment brackets

for indications of contact (wear),

inspecting for elongation of the holes in

the flap attachment brackets, repairing

or replacing any part showing wear, and

replacing any bracket with elongated

holes on Raytheon Aircraft Company

(Raytheon) Models 1900, 1900C, and

1900D airplanes. The proposed AD

would retain the actions required in AD

97–14–16, and would increase the

number of repetitive inspections by

reducing the number of ground-airground (GAG) cycles allowed between

inspections. The proposed AD would

also lower the total GAG cycles

accumulated before the required initial

inspection. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

asymmetric flaps, jammed flaps, and/or

possible interference between the flap

and the aileron, which could inhibit

aileron travel and result in possible loss

of roll control of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–CE–23–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from

Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box

85, Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085. This

information also may be examined at

the Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Steven E. Potter, Aerospace Engineer,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209;

telephone: (316) 946–4124; facsimile:

(316) 946–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications

should identify the Rules Docket

number and be submitted in triplicate to

the address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments, specified

above, will be considered before taking

action on the proposed rule. The

proposals contained in this notice may

be changed in light of the comments

received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 98–CE–23–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 98–CE–23–AD, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Discussion

AD 97–14–16, Amendment 39–10074,

(62 FR 37128, July 11, 1997) currently

requires repetitively inspecting the flap

aft roller bearings and flap attachment

brackets for indications of contact

(wear), inspecting for elongation of the

holes in the flap attachment brackets,

repairing or replacing any part showing

wear, and replacing any bracket found

with elongated holes on Raytheon

Models 1900, 1900C, and 1900D

airplanes.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of AD 97–14–16,

the manufacturer has reported to the

FAA that another incident of flap roll

bearings wearing on the flap attachment

brackets has occurred on a Raytheon

1900 series airplane. This makes a total

of five incidents of aileron interference

on these airplanes. Because the most

recent incident occurred at a much

lower number of GAG cycles than the

preceding incidents, the FAA believes

the number of flights accumulated

before the initial and repetitive

inspections required in AD 97–14–16

should be reduced.

Relevant Service Information

Raytheon has issued Safety

Communique ́ No. 137, dated May, 1997,

which specifies procedures for

inspecting the flap attachment brackets

for signs of wear, and inspecting the aft

roller bearing attachment holes for

elongation. If wear from contact is

visible or the roller bearing attachment

holes are elongated, the Safety

Communique ́ specifies procedures for

repairing or replacing the part. The new

service information issued, Raytheon

Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No.

SB 27–3158, Issued: June, 1998, is

basically the same action as the

information referenced above, except for

a change in the initial and repetitive

compliance times.

The FAA’s Determination

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the incidents described above,

the FAA has determined that AD action

should be taken to preclude interference

between the flap and the aileron, which

could help prevent aileron travel.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 36865

This condition, if not corrected, could

result in loss of directional control of

the airplane during critical phases of

flight.

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Raytheon Models 1900,

1900C, and 1900D airplanes of the same

type design, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 97–14–16 with a new AD.

The proposed AD would require the

same actions required in AD 97–14–16,

which are:

—Repetitively inspecting the outboard

flap attachment brackets and aft roller

bearings for wear;

—Inspecting for elongation of the holes

in the flap attachment brackets;

—Repairing or replacing any part

showing wear; and

—Replacing any bracket found with

elongated holes.

In addition, the proposed AD would

change the compliance time by reducing

the required number of GAG cycles

accumulated prior to the initial

inspection and the number of GAG

cycles required between the repetitive

inspections.

Differences Between the Service

Bulletin and the Proposed AD

The Raytheon Aircraft Mandatory

Service Bulletin No. SB 27–3158,

Issued: June, 1998, specifies that the

initial inspection be accomplished at

the accumulation of 1,200 GAG cycles,

with the repetitive inspections

occurring every 1,200 GAG cycles. The

FAA is proposing that the GAG cycles

be reduced to 600 for the initial

inspections and 600 GAG cycles

between the repetitive inspections. The

FAA is using GAG cycles while the

Raytheon service information is using

flap cycles, which varies by a factor of

two.

The FAA’s reason for reducing the

GAG cycles by half is that the unsafe

condition could occur during critical

phases of flight. The FAA must also

consider that an unsafe condition on

commuter aircraft warrants additional

caution.

Justification of Compliance Time and

Determination of the Effective Date of

This AD

Wear of the flap aft roller bearings and

flap attachment brackets and elongation

of the flap attachment bracket holes

occur over time. Examination of the

most recent referenced incident and all

information available to the FAA

indicates that this problem has the

potential of becoming detectable at

around 1,200 flap cycles. To ensure that

this unsafe condition does not occur

during flight, the FAA is using 2 flap

cycles per ground-air-ground cycle;

therefore the proposed initial inspection

would be required at a total

accumulation of 600 GAG cycles. The

repetitive inspection would be required

every 600 GAG cycles.

These airplanes are utilized primarily

in commuter service. Operators of these

airplanes average anywhere from 8 GAG

cycles per day to 14 GAG cycles per

day. Based on these averages, operators

of Raytheon 1900 series airplanes would

reach the above thresholds between 42

days to 75 days from the initial service

date of the airplane, and every 42 to 75

days after each repetitive inspection.

For these reasons, the FAA has

determined that the inspections

required by the proposed AD should

occur ‘‘Upon the accumulation of 600

total GAG cycles, or within the next 100

GAG cycles after the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs later, or

within 600 GAG cycles from the date of

the last inspection required by AD 97–

14–16, unless already accomplished,

and thereafter at intervals not to exceed

600 GAG cycles.’’ The 100 GAG cycles

for the initial compliance time is

utilized to allow a grace period for those

airplanes already over the 600 GAG

cycle time, so as not to inadvertently

ground the affected airplanes.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 527 airplanes

in the U.S. registry would be affected by

the proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 2 workhours per airplane

to accomplish the proposed inspection,

that it would take approximately 8

workhours to accomplish the proposed

repair, and that the average labor rate is

approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost

approximately $440 per airplane. Based

on these figures, the total cost impact of

the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $63,240, or $120 per

airplane

These figures are calculated on the

basis that the proposed inspection

would be the only cost required. The

proposed repair would be on the

condition that damage would be found

as a result of the inspection.

The cost impact to the owner/

operators of the affected airplanes could

possibly double since the FAA is

proposing a reduction of the number of

required GAG cycles between the

proposed inspections. The FAA is not

able to determine the number of

repetitive inspections that would occur

over the life of the airplane.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action has been placed in the Rules

Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 14

CFR part 39 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)

97–14–16, Amendment 39–10074 (62

FR 37128, July 11, 1997), and by adding

a new AD to read as follows:

Raytheon Aircraft Company (Type

Certificate No. A24CE formerly held by

the Beech Aircraft Corporation): Docket

No. 98–CE–23–AD; Supersedes AD 97–

14–16, Amendment 39–10074.

Applicability: The following model and

serial number airplanes, certificated in any

category:

Model Serial Nos.

1900 ................. UA–1 and UA–3.
36866 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Model Serial Nos.

1900C ............... UB–1 through UB–74, and

UC–1 through UC–174.

1900C (C–12J) UD–1 through UD–6.

1900D ............... UE–1 through all serial

numbers.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

Note 2: The compliance time of this AD

takes precedence over the compliance time

set out in the Raytheon Aircraft Mandatory

Service Bulletin No. SB 27-3158, Issued:

June, 1998.

Note 3: If the owners/operators of the

affected airplane have not kept track of GAG

cycles, hours time-in-service (TIS) may be

substituted by multiplying each hour TIS by

2, to calculate the number of GAG cycles. For

example, 1,300 hours TIS would equal 2,600

GAG cycles.

To prevent asymmetric flaps, jammed

flaps, and/or possible interference between

the flap and the aileron, which could inhibit

aileron travel and result in possible loss of

roll control of the airplane, accomplish the

following:

(a) Upon the accumulation of 600 total

ground-air-ground (GAG) cycles, or within

600 GAG cycles from the date of the last

inspection required by AD 97–14–16, or

within the next 100 GAG cycles after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed

600 GAG cycles, inspect the outboard flap

attachment brackets and aft roller bearings on

both wings for visible wear and elongation of

the bracket holes in accordance with

instructions 1 through 17 in Raytheon

Aircraft (Raytheon) Mandatory Service

Bulletin No. SB 27–3158, Issued: June, 1998.

(b) Prior to further flight, repair or replace

any worn or damaged part in accordance

with Temporary Revision No. 57–1 to the

Raytheon Aircraft Beech 1900 Airliner Series

Structural Repair Manual P/N 114–590021–

9B, dated May 16, 1997; Reissued June 30,

1992.

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199

to operate the airplane to a location where

the requirements of this AD can be

accomplished.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the initial or repetitive

compliance times that provides an equivalent

level of safety may be approved by the

Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office

(ACO), Room 100, 1801 Airport Road, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209.

(1) The request shall be forwarded through

an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,

who may add comments and then send it to

the Manager. Wichita ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance

approved for AD 97–14–16 are not

considered approved as alternative methods

of compliance for this AD.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita ACO.

(e) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the document referred

to herein upon request to Raytheon Aircraft

Company, 9709 E. Central, P. O. Box 85,

Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085; or may

examine this document at the FAA, Central

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Room

1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

(f) This amendment supersedes AD 97–14–

16, Amendment 39–10074.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June

29, 1998.

Marvin R. Nuss,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–18008 Filed 7–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

25 CFR Part 61

RIN 1076–AD89

Preparation of Rolls of Indians

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs

is amending its regulations governing

the compilation of rolls of Indians in

order to reopen the enrollment

application process for the Sisseton and

Wahpeton Mississippi Sioux Tribe. The

amendment reopens the enrollment

period to comply with a directive of the

Eighth Circuit of Appeals.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments are to be mailed

to Daisy West, Office of Tribal Services,

Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street,

NW, MS 4603–MIB, Washington, DC

20240; or, hand delivered to Room 4603

at the same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daisy West, Bureau of Indian Affairs

(202) 208–2475.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Bureau of Indian Affairs must

reopen the enrollment application

process authorized under 25 U.S.C.

1300d–3(b) to give individuals another

opportunity to file applications to share

in the Sisseton and Wahpeton

Mississippi Sioux judgment fund

distribution. The Eighth Circuit of

Appeals decision in Loudner v. U.S.,

108 (f). 3d 896 (8th Cir. 1997), held that

the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not give

proper notice of the application period,

and that 5 months was not a sufficient

time period within which to file

applications, in light of the long delay

in distribution of the fund. The

proposed rule is intended to reopen the

enrollment period in order to allow

sufficient time for eligible persons to

enroll.

Additional Notice and Public Meetings

The Bureau of Indian Affairs is taking

several steps to ensure that all potential

applicants are informed of the

reopening of the comment period. We

will notify all BIA Area Directors and

Agency Superintendents and require

them to post notices in area offices,

agency offices, community centers on

and near reservations, and in Indian

Health Clinics. We will also notify tribal

newspapers and newspapers of general

circulation in major communities in

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,

Nebraska, and Minnesota.

Additionally, we will hold

community meetings on Indian

reservations identified from the 1909

roll, including: Cheyenne River, Crow

Creek, Upper Sioux, SissetonWahpeton, Spirit Lake, Fort Peck,

Standing Rock, Lower Brule, Yankton,

Rosebud, and Pine Ridge. At each

meeting we will:

(1) Inform potential beneficiaries of

the reopening of the enrollment process

for this judgment fund;

(2) Inform potential beneficiaries of

eligibility criteria; and

(3) Help applicants to prepare and file

applications.

Previously Submitted Applications

We have on file applications

submitted under § 61.4(s) that we

denied because we received them after

November 1, 1973. We will now process

these applications. If you previously

filed an application that we denied, you

may wish to confirm that we have it and

are processing it. To do this, please call

Daisy West at (202) 208–2475.

Application Deadline

We have not established an

application deadline in this proposed

rule. In order to allow adequate time for